Skip to comments.
Radio Replies First Volume - "Bible Only" a false principle
Celledoor.com ^
| 1938
| Fathers Rumble & Carty
Posted on 07/16/2009 12:27:42 AM PDT by GonzoII
"Bible Only" a false principle
565. The Gospel of Christ is simplicity itself.
In one way it is. It tells us clearly that Christ established a definite Church which He commissioned to teach all nations. It is very simple from this point of view, for men have but to accept the Catholic Church, and be taught by that Church.
But the Gospel is not simplicity itself in the way you intend. Men have devoted their lives to the study of the Gospels, preparing themselves for the task by profound research in the Hebrew, Syrian, Arabic, Greek, and Latin languages. And even then, many passages are most difficult to understand.
566. But at least the plan of salvation can be understood by the simplest person. We Protestants even tell our children to read their Bibles in order to discern it.
According to the findings of your simple readers there must be hundreds of conflicting plans of salvation, all revealed by the one Christ! As for the capacity of your children, you might as well give them the article in the Encyclopaedia Brittanica on Spectroscopic Analysis as the subject matter of their studies. But the Bible itself is against your theory. Thus St. Peter says that in Scripture there are certain things "hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." 2 Pet 3:16. To his mind the private interpretation of Scripture can be most dangerous.
567. God has given us brains to think for ourselves. We do not need Help to understand Scripture.
God had given men brains before He came to teach them Himself, and He came to teach them precisely because their brains could not succeed in finding out the things which were to their peace. If you say that His revealed teachings in the Scriptures together with our brains are enough, those very revealed teachings tell you that they are not. Even in the Old Law God said, "The lips of the Priest shall keep knowledge, and they shall seek the law at his mouth." Mal 2:7. In the New Law Christ sent His Church to teach men, transferring to His Church that authority of God once possessed by the Priests of the Old Law. In the New Testament itself we find Philip the Deacon saying to the Ethiopian, who was reading the Scriptures, "Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest?" and the Ethiopian replying, "And how can I unless some man show me?" Acts 8:30. St. Peter, too, explicitly refutes your ideas. "No prophecy of Scripture," he writes, "is of any private interpretation." 2 Pet 1:20.
568. St. Peter means that the Prophets did not prophesy by their own will, but by the Holy Spirit. He does not refer to interpretation by us.
Your own Protestant Bishop Ellicott says of these verses, "The words private interpretation might seem to mean that the sacred writers did not get their prophecies by private interpretation, but by divine inspiration. But this is certainly not the meaning. The real meaning is that the reader must not presume to interpret privately that which is far more than ordinary human thought."
569. Any man who can think has the moral right to interpret anything.
He has not. The very laws of the state are not subject to the interpretation of each and every citizen. There is such a thing as thinking erroneously. In difficulties of civil law a man consults a lawyer who knows legal practice and parallel statutes. Who gives you the right to take greater liberties with divine legislation? A man who knows nothing of Hebrew or Greek, and is quite untrained in Scriptural exegesis, would misapprehend the sense of Scripture in hundreds of places.
570. Did not Christ promise that He would send the Holy Spirit to teach us all truth?
He did not promise that the Holy Spirit would teach each individual separately. If every individual were under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, all who read Scripture sincerely should come to the same conclusion. But they do not. The frightful chaos as to the meaning of Scripture is proof positive that the Holy Spirit has not chosen this way of leading men to the truth. It is blasphemy to say that the Holy Spirit does not know His own mind, and that He deliberately leads men into contradictory notions. Christ promised to preserve His Church as a Church by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and the only Church which shows signs of having been preserved is the consistent Catholic Church. The individual is guided by the Holy Spirit to a certain extent in the ways of holiness, but in the knowledge of revealed truth he is to be guided by the Catholic Church which Christ sent to teach all nations.
571. I don't see the need of learning to understand a simple story for simple people.
The Bible is not a simple story for simple people. We live thousands of years after the Bible was written, and our language and customs are very different now. No book written at one age is easy for another age. The study of antiquities demands a knowledge of primitive languages of which few are capable, and for which still fewer have the time. Anyway God never intended the Bible to be the sole guide to religion for all time. Christ taught orally and with authority, and He sent His Church to teach in the same way and with the same authority.
572. Hoiv does it help to know Hebrew or Greek?
Because one must know what the original words meant in the language in which Scripture was written. A knowledge of Hebrew and Greek soon shows that the translators do not always find an English word to express the exact sense of the original. God inspired the thoughts of the original writers, not the work of the translators. And if you read a sense into Scripture which God did not intend at all, you no longer have God's Word.
573. Christ chose poor fishermen, not learned men.
He trained them personally, and infused into their minds an exact knowledge of His doctrine. We cannot claim to have received a similar revelation, that we should rank ourselves with them.
574. Then Catholics have to believe just what the Priest likes to tell them?
The Priest cannot tell the people just what he likes. He is obliged to teach just what Christ taught, and which has been taught him in the Name of Christ by the infallible Catholic Church.
575. Is your Church afraid that people will form opinions for themselves?
If we consider some of the opinions people have formed for themselves from their private reading of Scripture there is need to be afraid. Christ's method was to establish a teaching Church. Protestants have a peculiar method of their own, but you cannot blame the Catholic Church for not using the Protestant method, a method which has led to nothing but uncertainty and widespread unbelief.
576. Admitting the necessity of guidance, are not our Protestant ministers as capable as Catholic Priests in telling us what Scripture means?
They might be, if Priests had not an infallible Catholic Church to guide them. The Catholic Church rejoices in the special assistance of the Holy Spirit, and the Priest has the help of her defined doctrines and the constant Catholic tradition as a safeguard. But your Protestant ministers do not claim to be spokesmen of an infallible Church. On their own principles they have to admit that they are possibly wrong. And as a matter of fact, where all Priests are agreed in the essential teachings of Scripture, your ministers come to all kinds of contradictory conclusions. The unity of teaching among Catholic Priests is a greater indication of capability than the chaos which prevails outside the Catholic Church. But the capability of Catholic Priests has little to do with relative personal attainments. It is derived from the authority of the infallible Catholic Church.
577. You speak of the authority of the Church and the weight of tradition. But I have been taught that Scripture is the only rule of faith.
You have been taught wrongly. Scripture itself denies that it is the only rule of faith. The last verse of St. John's Gospel tells us that not all concerning Our Lord's work is contained in Scripture. St. Paul tells us over and over again that much of Christian teaching is to be found in tradition. One who clings to the reading of the Bible only might be able to cite hundreds of texts yet not know Christian doctrine by any means. In fact, the adoption of the Bible only has led to as many opinions as there are men amongst non-Catholics. Finally, Scripture tells us most clearly that the Catholic Church is the rule of faith, that Church which Christ sent to teach all nations and which He commanded men to hear and obey. He who believes in Scripture as his only guide ends by believing in his own mistaken interpretations of the Bible, and that means that he ends by believing in himself.
578. Is not the Church built on the knowledge it gets from the Bible?
No. The Catholic Church was built by Christ and upon Christ before a line of the New Testament was written. She received her doctrine immediately from the lips of Christ, and is safeguarded from error in her teaching by the Holy Spirit. Between 40 and 80 years after her foundation, some of her members wrote the Books of the New Testament. If the Gospels were the only rule of faith, then before they were written there could have been no Christian rule of faith at all!
579. Christ gave us the command to search the Scriptures. Jn 5:39.
That was a retort, not a command, and you cannot turn a particular rebuke into a universal law. Were it a universal law, it would have been impossible of fulfillment by the vast majority during the fourteen centuries prior to the invention of the printing press! But take the context. The Jews, who boasted of their fidelity to the Mosaic Law, would not believe in Christ. He challenged them: "(You) search the Scriptures, for you think in them to have life everlasting; and the same are they that give testimony of me." The Catholic Church could say in the same way to Protestants: "You are ever speaking of searching the Scriptures as opposed to my methods, and think in them to have everlasting life independently of me; yet the same are they that give testimony of me."
580. Do we not read that the early Christians searched the Scriptures daily? Acts 17:11.
They first received the true doctrine from the teaching Church, and then merely checked it in the Scriptures. That is the right procedure, and Catholics today do the same. But your way is not first to be taught by the Church, and then verify, but to try to make out your own religion from the Bible with an untrained mind and by that private interpretation which Scripture itself forbids.
581. Well, I am afraid of nothing as long as I have the pure Word of God to fall back upon.
Without the Catholic Church you cannot prove it to be the pure Word of God. Nor need anyone be afraid of the pure Word of God. What we must fear is the Word of God adulterated by people who read into it whatever they like. Encoding copyright 2009 by Frederick Manligas Nacino. Some rights reserved.
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0
http://www.celledoor.com/cpdv-ebe/
TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic
KEYWORDS: catholic; radiorepliesvolone
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-104 next last
Historical Context of "Radio Replies"
By markomalley
If one recalls the time frame from which Radio Replies emerged, it can explain some of the frankness and lack of tact in the nature of the responses provided.
It was during this timeframe that a considerable amount of anti-Catholic rhetoric came to the forefront, particularly in this country. Much of this developed during the Presidential campaign of Al Smith in 1928, but had its roots in the publication of Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons, originally published in book form in 1919 and also published in pamphlet form in 1853.
While in Britain (and consequently Australia), the other fellow would surely have experienced the effects of the Popery Act, the Act of Settlement, the Disenfranchising Act, the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, and many others since the reformation (that basically boiled down to saying, "We won't kill you if you just be good, quiet little Catholics"). Even the so-called Catholic Relief Acts (1778, 1791, 1829, 1851, 1871) still had huge barriers placed in the way.
And of course, they'd both remember the American Protective Association, "Guy Fawkes Days" (which included burning the Pontiff in effigy), the positions of the Whigs and Ultra-Torries, and so on.
A strong degree of "in your face" from people in the position of authoritativeness was required back in the 1930s, as there was a large contingent of the populations of both the US and the British Empire who were not at all shy about being "in your face" toward Catholics in the first place (in other words, a particularly contentious day on Free Republic would be considered a mild day in some circles back then). Sure, in polite, educated circles, contention was avoided (thus the little ditty about it not being polite to discuss religion in public, along with sex and politics), but it would be naive to assume that we all got along, or anything resembling that, back in the day.
Having said all of the above, reading the articles from the modern mindset and without the historical context that I tried to briefly summarize above, they make challenging reading, due to their bluntness.
The reader should also keep in mind that the official teaching of the Church takes a completely different tone, best summed up in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:
Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271
818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers .... All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272
819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276
838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."324
269 UR 3 § 1.
270 Cf. CIC, can. 751.
271 Origen, Hom. in Ezech. 9,1:PG 13,732.
272 UR 3 § 1.
273 LG 8 § 2.
274 UR 3 § 2; cf. LG 15.
275 Cf. UR 3.
276 Cf. LG 8.
322 LG 15.
323 UR 3.
324 Paul VI, Discourse, December 14, 1975; cf. UR 13-18.
1
posted on
07/16/2009 12:27:43 AM PDT
by
GonzoII
To: All
Rev. Dr. Leslie Rumble, M.S.C.
"I was brought up as a Protestant, probably with more inherited prejudices than most non-Catholics of these days. My parents were Anglican and taught me the Angelican faith. My 'broad-minded' protestant teachers taught me to dislike the Catholic Church intensely. I later tried Protestantism in various other forms, and it is some thirty years since, in God's providence, I became a Catholic. As for the 'open, free, sincere worship' of a Protestant Church, I tasted it, but for me it proved in the end to be not only open, but empty; it was altogether too free from God's prescriptions."
Eventually, Leslie became a priest of the Missionaries of the Sacred Heart.
In 1928, Fr. Rumble began a one-hour 'Question Box' program on 2SM Sydney, N.S.W. radio on Sunday evenings that was heard all over Australia and New Zealand. For five years he answered questions on every subject imaginable that had been written to him from all over that part of the globe. His first show began with a classic introduction:
"Good evening, listeners all. For some time I have been promising to give a session dealing with questions of religion and morality, in which the listeners themselves should decide what is of interest to them. Such a session will commence next Sunday evening, and I invite you to send in any questions you wish on these subjects . . . So now I invite you, non-Catholics above all, to send in any questions you wish on religion, or morality, or the Catholic Church, and I shall explain exactly the Catholic position, and give the reasons for it. In fact I almost demand those questions. Many hard things have been said, and are still being said, about the Catholic Church, though no criminal, has been so abused, that she has a right to be heard. I do not ask that you give your name and address. A nom de plume will do. Call yourself Voltaire, Confucius, X.Y.Z., what you like, so long as you give indication enough to recognize your answer."
"By the summer of 1937, the first edition of Radio Replies was already in print in Australia, financed by Rt. Rev. Monsignor James Meany, P.P. - the director of Station 2SM of whom I am greatly indebted."
"I have often been mistaken, as most men at times. And it is precisely to make sure that I will not be mistaken in the supremely important matter of religion that I cling to a Church which cannot be mistaken, but must be right where I might be wrong. God knew that so many sincere men would make mistakes that He deliberately established an infallible Church to preserve them from error where it was most important that they should not go wrong."
Rev. Charles Mortimer Carty
I broadcast my radio program, the Catholic Radio Hour, from St. Paul, Minnesota.
I was also carrying on as a Catholic Campaigner for Christ, the Apostolate to the man in the street through the medium of my trailer and loud-speaking system. In the distribution of pamphlets and books on the Catholic Faith, Radio Replies proved the most talked of book carried in my trailer display of Catholic literature. As many of us street preachers have learned, it is not so much what you say over the microphone in answer to questions from open air listeners, but what you get into their hands to read. The questions Fr. Rumble had to answer on the other side of the planet are same the questions I had to answer before friendly and hostile audiences throughout my summer campaign."
I realized that this priest in Australia was doing exactly the same work I was doing here in St. Paul. Because of the success of his book, plus the delay in getting copies from Sydney and the prohibitive cost of the book on this side of the universe, I got in contact with him to publish a cheap American edition.
It doesn't take long for the imagination to start thinking about how much we could actually do. We began the Radio Replies Press Society Publishing Company, finished the American edition of what was to be the first volume of Radio Replies, recieved the necessary imprimatur, and Msgr. Fulton J. Sheen agreed to write a preface. About a year after the publication of the first edition in Australia, we had the American edition out and in people's hands.
The book turned into a phenomena. Letters began pouring into my office from every corner of the United States; Protestant Publishing Houses are requesting copies for distribution to Protestant Seminaries; a few Catholic Seminaries have adopted it as an official textbook - and I had still never met Dr. Rumble in person.
To keep a long story short, we finally got a chance to meet, published volumes two and three of Radio Replies, printed a set of ten booklets on subjects people most often asked about, and a few other pamphlets on subjects of interest to us.
Fr. Carty died on May 22, 1964 in Connecticut.
"Firstly, since God is the Author of all truth, nothing that is definitely true can every really contradict anything else that is definitely true. Secondly, the Catholic Church is definitely true. It therefore follows that no objection or difficulty, whether drawn from history, Scripture, science, or philosophy, can provide a valid argument against the truth of the Catholic religion."
Biographies compiled from the introductions to Radio Replies, volumes 1, 2 and 3.
Source: www.catholicauthors.com
2
posted on
07/16/2009 12:28:11 AM PDT
by
GonzoII
("That they may be one...Father")
To: fidelis; Atomic Vomit; MI; Sir_Humphrey; dsc; annalex
Radio Replies Ping
FReep-mail me to get on or off
“The Radio Replies Ping-List”
ON / OFF
3
posted on
07/16/2009 12:29:09 AM PDT
by
GonzoII
("That they may be one...Father")
To: All
4
posted on
07/16/2009 12:30:42 AM PDT
by
GonzoII
("That they may be one...Father")
To: GonzoII
578. Is not the Church built on the knowledge it gets from the Bible?No.
Ain't that the truth.
5
posted on
07/16/2009 3:55:18 AM PDT
by
Always Right
(Obama: more arrogant than Bill Clinton, more naive than Jimmy Carter, and more liberal than LBJ.)
To: Always Right
You wrote:
“Ain’t that the truth.”
As it must be for the Church established by Christ. Christ established the Church BEFORE the New Testament was written. The Church, therefore, is built upon Christ, the Apostles and the truth given to them. Any Church which claims to hve been built upon the Bible must naturally have been established by men and not Christ, and is, therefore, a sect, false and rebellious against Christ.
To: GonzoII
Bible only is not a false principle. However, it is the ultimate rule of our faith. That does not mean that we shouldn’t be guided by the elders of our churches or any true promptings of the Holy Spirit.
For example, what is the authority for the trinitarian theology of historic Christianity? Every authority I’ve seen, ultimately falls back on scripture, even the early fathers.
One should never give the impression that Scripture is an unworthy principle.
7
posted on
07/16/2009 5:54:28 AM PDT
by
xzins
(Chaplain Says: Jesus befriends all who ask Him for help.)
To: Always Right
Ya got that right, always.
8
posted on
07/16/2009 6:01:22 AM PDT
by
Marysecretary
(GOD IS STILL IN CONTROL!)
To: vladimir998
As it must be for the Church established by Christ. Christ established the Church BEFORE the New Testament was written. The Church, therefore, is built upon Christ, the Apostles and the truth given to them. Any Church which claims to hve been built upon the Bible must naturally have been established by men and not Christ, and is, therefore, a sect, false and rebellious against Christ.Christ identified the Church as all who acknowledge Christ as their savior. Your whole premise is false. It is the Catholic Church which is based on tradttions of men. Just because Christ's words were only later recored in the New Testament doesn't mean a Bible based Church is therefore a sect. Your argument lacks logic.
9
posted on
07/16/2009 6:36:19 AM PDT
by
Always Right
(Obama: more arrogant than Bill Clinton, more naive than Jimmy Carter, and more liberal than LBJ.)
To: vladimir998
Sorry, forgot to remove the italics in last post....
As it must be for the Church established by Christ. Christ established the Church BEFORE the New Testament was written. The Church, therefore, is built upon Christ, the Apostles and the truth given to them. Any Church which claims to hve been built upon the Bible must naturally have been established by men and not Christ, and is, therefore, a sect, false and rebellious against Christ.
Christ identified the Church as all who acknowledge Christ as their savior. Your whole premise is false. It is the Catholic Church which is based on tradttions of men. Just because Christ's words were only later recored in the New Testament doesn't mean a Bible based Church is therefore a sect. Your argument lacks logic.
10
posted on
07/16/2009 6:37:12 AM PDT
by
Always Right
(Obama: more arrogant than Bill Clinton, more naive than Jimmy Carter, and more liberal than LBJ.)
To: GonzoII
The irony of “Bible only” is that it is not Biblical!
11
posted on
07/16/2009 7:14:07 AM PDT
by
TheDon
To: vladimir998
“Whosoever believeth in Me shall not perish, but have everlasting life”.
I don’t recall that being modified by “if you join the right denomination”.
12
posted on
07/16/2009 8:15:54 AM PDT
by
JimRed
("Hey, hey, Teddy K., how many girls did you drown today?" TERM LIMITS, NOW AND FOREVER!)
To: Always Right
You wrote:
“Christ identified the Church as all who acknowledge Christ as their savior. Your whole premise is false.”
No, your premise is false. Your premise is anachronistic. you are a Protestant. You believe in Jesus as other Christians do. You read the NT and see in it that the Church is of te believers. You then, anachronistically, assume that that means your sect is incorporated into Christ or that you personally ar incorporated into Christ without any Church at all. Both assumptions are wrong. Christ established a Church. When He established it - and through out the NT period - the Church contained all the believers. Thus, when Jesus or the NT writers discuss the Church as being made up of all believers they are absolutely right. There was only one Church. Christ didn’t establish your sect. It didn’t exist until less than 500 years ago (more likely, much, much more recently than that).
“It is the Catholic Church which is based on tradttions of men. Just because Christ’s words were only later recored in the New Testament doesn’t mean a Bible based Church is therefore a sect. Your argument lacks logic.”
No, my argument is irrefutable. The Church came before the NT. Period. Irrefutable. Any sect today - like yours - that claims to be Bible based is really just a johnny-come-lately man-made sect based on the opinions of men.
To: JimRed
You wrote:
“I don’t recall that being modified by “if you join the right denomination”.”
I don’t recall claiming it was. Don’t you think you would be more successful in your arguements if you actually argued against something I said rather than attack something I never said?
To: vladimir998
No, my argument is irrefutable. The Church came before the NT. Period. Irrefutable. Any sect today - like yours - that claims to be Bible based is really just a johnny-come-lately man-made sect based on the opinions of men. First Jesus never established The Catholic Church. The rock the Church is built upon is Jesus, not a bunch of Popes. Secondly, your argument about when the Bible was written makes no sense. What Jesus said is the Truth, it didn't just become the Truth when they were written down. When they were written has no bearing on what constitutes a church. You argument is nonsensical unless you are implying the NT is inaccurate.
15
posted on
07/16/2009 9:03:17 AM PDT
by
Always Right
(Obama: more arrogant than Bill Clinton, more naive than Jimmy Carter, and more liberal than LBJ.)
To: Always Right
You wrote:
“First Jesus never established The Catholic Church.”
Yes, actually He did.
“The rock the Church is built upon is Jesus, not a bunch of Popes.”
The cornerstone is Christ. Peter was the Rock. Peter means Rock after all.
“Secondly, your argument about when the Bible was written makes no sense. What Jesus said is the Truth, it didn’t just become the Truth when they were written down.”
I didn’t say it did. And my argument not only makes sense, but is irrefutable: 1) The Church existed before the New Testament. That cannot be denied by any rational person. 2) When the NT was written there was only the Church and those short-lived heretics and schismatics who left it who were otherwise forgotten. That too is irrefutable. There is only one Church according to Christ and the NT.
“When they were written has no bearing on what constitutes a church.”
You’re in a sect. It is a sect because it was founded by men sometime after 1500. Your sect has no foundation in Christ, does not come from Christ, and is not, and cannot be, a Church. It’s just a sect.
‘You argument is nonsensical unless you are implying the NT is inaccurate.”
I am insisting on the exact opposite. The NT is entirely accurate and inerrant. That’s how we know you’re in a sect. Your sect was established more than 1400 years (more likely more than 1900 years) too late to be the NT Church Christ founded. It is, therefore, irrefutably a sect. Again, the NT shows Christ established a Church. Period. To claim that some sect founded in 1988 or 1534 or 1712 is anything but a sect denies the reality of the New Testament and that is exactly what you’re doing.
To: vladimir998
***No, my argument is irrefutable. The Church came before the NT. Period. Irrefutable.***
Since the church was before the New Testament, why do the sermons and letters of the Apostles differ so much from later church teaching? Can you reconcile wht is taught in ROMANS (the bible within a bible)with the early and later church fathers?
17
posted on
07/16/2009 9:29:58 AM PDT
by
Ruy Dias de Bivar
(La commedia e' finita!. Now it's serious!)
To: xzins
"Bible only is not a false principle." There is no historical/Biblical evidence for the "Bible only" principle.
"However, it is the ultimate rule of our faith."
Same answer as above.
18
posted on
07/16/2009 10:09:53 AM PDT
by
GonzoII
("That they may be one...Father")
To: vladimir998
Sorry, that was not aimed at you in particular, but at those who insist that only one of the Christian churches has the path to salvation. I should have made that clear.
19
posted on
07/16/2009 10:10:32 AM PDT
by
JimRed
("Hey, hey, Teddy K., how many girls did you drown today?" TERM LIMITS, NOW AND FOREVER!)
To: GonzoII
Allow me to suggest you read any of the ante-nicean fathers. They cite it as an authority continually.
And, to quote Paul, “”All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.”
So, “The Bible Only” as being DIRECTLY from God is a matter that is settled by Paul.
20
posted on
07/16/2009 10:27:27 AM PDT
by
xzins
(Chaplain Says: Jesus befriends all who ask Him for help.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-104 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
